And to add to your point about fire departments: Putting out fires used to be a private business. You would pay a fee for a guarantee that a particular fire company would come to put out any fires on your house. And it kinda sorta worked, except when someone skimped and in the course of his house burning to the ground somebody's gas line explodes and 3 neighboring houses catch fire and also burn to the ground.
The federal government simply doesn't have a good resume; you can't blame the unbiased peoples for not loving the idea of the government running yet another program.
Here's the thing: When the federal government (or state or municipal government, for that matter) does their job well, you usually don't notice (much like sysadmins). So it's not that they have a bad track record so much as their mistakes are noticed more than their successes.
Some examples of things governments have probably done for you over the last year that you didn't notice or recognize: - Kept your tap water running and safe from parasites and other nasties. - Cleared snow and ice from the roads you take to and from work each day. - Ensured that the food you bought at the grocery store wasn't infected with E. coli. - Made sure the kids your child is around at school do not have measles. - Kept your home from catching on fire because one person was smoking in bed 3 blocks away. - Made sure that the people behind the wheels of the vehicles around you had some clue as to how to drive. - As far as the USPS is concerned, think about how much business would completely grind to a halt without them. In particular, people in very rural areas are extremely dependent on the postal service for deliveries, because their private competitors often won't serve those areas. - Built a bridge that can last 50 years before getting replaced rather than 15 years.
If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game. Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so).... I normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Who decides whether a US citizen is an enemy (and an enemy of what, I might add)? Who decided they were the "wrong" people? Who proved that they were the wrong people, and to whom? That's the core of the ACLU's point: the Constitution is extremely clear that just because the executive branch says that a citizen is a Bad Guy doing Bad Things does not in fact make it legally so until they've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt to the judicial branch. And it's also worth pointing out that military personnel have rules of engagement which spell out who they are allowed to target under what circumstances.
If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.
No, that's not in fact true. When Tim the Ex-Marine and Security Guard built and detonated a really big bomb right next to a US government building, he got all the protections of the Bill of Rights, including a fair and speedy trial. Why? Because it was the executive branch's responsibility to demonstrate to the courts that he was in fact the guy, that they'd gathered their evidence without violating his rights, and had in fact done what they said he did.
The kinds of folks the ACLU are talking about here are those who are not known to have engaged in combat with the US, are not known to be members of any military or designated terrorist organization, and aren't even in or near a war zone. This is about academics being blown up in Yemen, not guys with AK-47's getting shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh, these corporations gave a frak. Because what you call "wasting government money" they call "making a tidy profit".
This is why I tend to be in favor of government doing things in-house rather than contracted out - while public employees might not be the most motivated bunch of folks on the planet, at least they don't have a strong motivation to make things run as inefficiently as they can get away with.
Well, as recent events in Texas have demonstrated, a minority conservatives think it's better to change reality to suit their ideology than to change their ideology to suit reality. Which was exactly the same motivation for Conservapedia.
Even if that were true (which as the sibling poster points out, probably isn't), so what? The whole point of the Establishment Clause is that the government can't pick favorites, even if those favorites are the religion of the overwhelming majority of the population and/or history of the country. Jefferson in particular was very clear on that point.
And an important fairness test for you: If the country was founded by a faith you find distasteful, would you be fine with your tax dollars going to fund their faith-based organizations?
Colby, from Centralia MO writes: Do you feel that Pagan faith based groups should be given the same considerations as any other group that seeks aid?
Jim Towey (Director, White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, 2002-2006): I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.
Alright, so we'll start with your premises: A. Inherent rights are things like being able to walk down a public street without getting punched in the face. B. Government exists solely to enforce these rights.
So let's say Alice (a citizen of this country) accuses Bob (another citizen) of punching her in the face on the street. Now, perfectly reasonably, we want our government to enforce Alice's right by restricting Bob's rights (say, fining him - reducing his right to property, or confining him - restricting his right to travel freely). However, we can't just do what we want to do Bob - Alice's accusation might be completely false. So we therefor need some kind of court system to determine whether Bob did punch Alice, and if so what the government can do about it. We also need some system to ensure that Bob shows up in court even if he doesn't want to, and some other system to ensure his punishment is carried out.
Now, from that, it's easy to deduce that ensuring this judicial system, which is needed to protect Alice's rights, needs to also protect Bob's inherent rights (via the mechanisms I described earlier). And since this judicial system isn't free of cost, somebody needs to pay for it.
So rights which are inherent necessitate rights which are not free, ergo I stand by my assertion that you have a right to things that aren't free.
Established by George W Bush, and kept by Barack H Obama. Some of the controversy around that office includes the fact that the organizations that are funded by it are almost universally Christian-run, and have in some cases had the government funding put into evangelizing a particular variety of Christian faith.
I use my real name whenever what I'm posting is something I'd want future employers, parents, the police, etc tying to me. I don't when that information could be used to market to me.
For instance, I'd want to get credit for solving a really confusing technical problem for someone on a Saturday afternoon. Or contributing useful work to an open-source project. That way, when someone who I'm trying to impress Googles me, they find out all sorts of nifty stuff that I've done. (Actually, in my case, I have an added advantage in that some folks who have the same first and last name as me has done all sorts of nifty things).
Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich continue to represent their congressional districts.
Kucinich (who I know more about because I'm in his district) has beaten several credible and well-funded challengers easily. Oh, plus he was able to snag a truly gorgeous and intelligent wife (pic). So at least personally, he's making good money as a Congressman and sleeping with a hot redhead. One could do a lot worse.
Politically, he's most recently made headlines for refusing to vote for health care reform that requires all citizens to buy from a government-controlled list of privately owned businesses. He's gotten enough support in the House that he could well stop Obamacare from going through the way that the "centrist" Democrats want it.
Of course dolphins are more intelligent than us: we've achieved so much (wars, the wheel, and so on), while all the dolphins have done is muck about in the water having a good time.
Not to raise a "tu quoque" argument here, but of course the Tea Party is precisely the same thing, just a part of a different political machine (the same one that brought Sarah Palin into the limelight).
Which brings me to Rule #1 of understanding any political organization: follow the money.
3 candidates I can think of off the top of my head that would have not taken this kind of stand in favor of big business: - Ralph Nader, because he's built his entire career on going after corporate chicanery. - Ron Paul, because he as a general rule doesn't want the federal government to either support or oppose a particular industry or business model. - Dennis Kucinich, because he's consistently advocated the use of government power to put a check on big business's abuses of their power going back to his days as mayor of Cleveland.
Notice how seriously anyone in the mainstream media took either of their campaigns (for instance, asking Kucinich about UFOs rather than health care or Iraq).
Slashdot Mirror
And to add to your point about fire departments: Putting out fires used to be a private business. You would pay a fee for a guarantee that a particular fire company would come to put out any fires on your house. And it kinda sorta worked, except when someone skimped and in the course of his house burning to the ground somebody's gas line explodes and 3 neighboring houses catch fire and also burn to the ground.
The federal government simply doesn't have a good resume; you can't blame the unbiased peoples for not loving the idea of the government running yet another program.
Here's the thing: When the federal government (or state or municipal government, for that matter) does their job well, you usually don't notice (much like sysadmins). So it's not that they have a bad track record so much as their mistakes are noticed more than their successes.
Some examples of things governments have probably done for you over the last year that you didn't notice or recognize:
- Kept your tap water running and safe from parasites and other nasties.
- Cleared snow and ice from the roads you take to and from work each day.
- Ensured that the food you bought at the grocery store wasn't infected with E. coli.
- Made sure the kids your child is around at school do not have measles.
- Kept your home from catching on fire because one person was smoking in bed 3 blocks away.
- Made sure that the people behind the wheels of the vehicles around you had some clue as to how to drive.
- As far as the USPS is concerned, think about how much business would completely grind to a halt without them. In particular, people in very rural areas are extremely dependent on the postal service for deliveries, because their private competitors often won't serve those areas.
- Built a bridge that can last 50 years before getting replaced rather than 15 years.
For some reason the first thing that came to mind was this famous battle scene.
This one.
Please stop giving Tom Cruise ideas.
No, we all know that the real title will be The Hobbit 2: The Search for more Money.
What do you mean, mein dickie old chum?
If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game. Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so). ... I normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Who decides whether a US citizen is an enemy (and an enemy of what, I might add)? Who decided they were the "wrong" people? Who proved that they were the wrong people, and to whom? That's the core of the ACLU's point: the Constitution is extremely clear that just because the executive branch says that a citizen is a Bad Guy doing Bad Things does not in fact make it legally so until they've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt to the judicial branch. And it's also worth pointing out that military personnel have rules of engagement which spell out who they are allowed to target under what circumstances.
If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.
No, that's not in fact true. When Tim the Ex-Marine and Security Guard built and detonated a really big bomb right next to a US government building, he got all the protections of the Bill of Rights, including a fair and speedy trial. Why? Because it was the executive branch's responsibility to demonstrate to the courts that he was in fact the guy, that they'd gathered their evidence without violating his rights, and had in fact done what they said he did.
The kinds of folks the ACLU are talking about here are those who are not known to have engaged in combat with the US, are not known to be members of any military or designated terrorist organization, and aren't even in or near a war zone. This is about academics being blown up in Yemen, not guys with AK-47's getting shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh, these corporations gave a frak. Because what you call "wasting government money" they call "making a tidy profit".
This is why I tend to be in favor of government doing things in-house rather than contracted out - while public employees might not be the most motivated bunch of folks on the planet, at least they don't have a strong motivation to make things run as inefficiently as they can get away with.
Err, that's "a minority of conservatives", obviously.
Well, as recent events in Texas have demonstrated, a minority conservatives think it's better to change reality to suit their ideology than to change their ideology to suit reality. Which was exactly the same motivation for Conservapedia.
What if nobody saw else it?
What if one of the 9 volunteers off the street is Bob's best buddy and won't vote to convict him no matter what?
What if what Alice doesn't tell Joe, Fred, and Sam is that Alice had just swiped Bob's wallet and Bob punched her to get it back?
What if Bob pays each of the jurors $10 to not convict him?
I can keep going if you like.
but this country was FOUNDED by Christians....
Even if that were true (which as the sibling poster points out, probably isn't), so what? The whole point of the Establishment Clause is that the government can't pick favorites, even if those favorites are the religion of the overwhelming majority of the population and/or history of the country. Jefferson in particular was very clear on that point.
And an important fairness test for you: If the country was founded by a faith you find distasteful, would you be fine with your tax dollars going to fund their faith-based organizations?
Take for instance this exchange (available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ask/20031126.html):
Colby, from Centralia MO writes:
Do you feel that Pagan faith based groups should be given the same considerations as any other group that seeks aid?
Jim Towey (Director, White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, 2002-2006):
I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.
Alright, so we'll start with your premises:
A. Inherent rights are things like being able to walk down a public street without getting punched in the face.
B. Government exists solely to enforce these rights.
So let's say Alice (a citizen of this country) accuses Bob (another citizen) of punching her in the face on the street. Now, perfectly reasonably, we want our government to enforce Alice's right by restricting Bob's rights (say, fining him - reducing his right to property, or confining him - restricting his right to travel freely). However, we can't just do what we want to do Bob - Alice's accusation might be completely false. So we therefor need some kind of court system to determine whether Bob did punch Alice, and if so what the government can do about it. We also need some system to ensure that Bob shows up in court even if he doesn't want to, and some other system to ensure his punishment is carried out.
Now, from that, it's easy to deduce that ensuring this judicial system, which is needed to protect Alice's rights, needs to also protect Bob's inherent rights (via the mechanisms I described earlier). And since this judicial system isn't free of cost, somebody needs to pay for it.
So rights which are inherent necessitate rights which are not free, ergo I stand by my assertion that you have a right to things that aren't free.
Right here.
Established by George W Bush, and kept by Barack H Obama. Some of the controversy around that office includes the fact that the organizations that are funded by it are almost universally Christian-run, and have in some cases had the government funding put into evangelizing a particular variety of Christian faith.
I use my real name whenever what I'm posting is something I'd want future employers, parents, the police, etc tying to me. I don't when that information could be used to market to me.
For instance, I'd want to get credit for solving a really confusing technical problem for someone on a Saturday afternoon. Or contributing useful work to an open-source project. That way, when someone who I'm trying to impress Googles me, they find out all sorts of nifty stuff that I've done. (Actually, in my case, I have an added advantage in that some folks who have the same first and last name as me has done all sorts of nifty things).
No. The only one that's really left appears to be the Third, which prevents the quartering of soldiers in private homes.
You can not have a right to something that is non-free.
Sure you can. Public defense attorneys, jury trials, and other requirements of the Constitution definitely aren't free.
What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?
California. Prop 13 and St Reagan say so.
Thanks, HAL.
Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich continue to represent their congressional districts.
Kucinich (who I know more about because I'm in his district) has beaten several credible and well-funded challengers easily. Oh, plus he was able to snag a truly gorgeous and intelligent wife (pic). So at least personally, he's making good money as a Congressman and sleeping with a hot redhead. One could do a lot worse.
Politically, he's most recently made headlines for refusing to vote for health care reform that requires all citizens to buy from a government-controlled list of privately owned businesses. He's gotten enough support in the House that he could well stop Obamacare from going through the way that the "centrist" Democrats want it.
So yeah, that stance isn't too bad for 'em.
Of course dolphins are more intelligent than us: we've achieved so much (wars, the wheel, and so on), while all the dolphins have done is muck about in the water having a good time.
Not to raise a "tu quoque" argument here, but of course the Tea Party is precisely the same thing, just a part of a different political machine (the same one that brought Sarah Palin into the limelight).
Which brings me to Rule #1 of understanding any political organization: follow the money.
3 candidates I can think of off the top of my head that would have not taken this kind of stand in favor of big business:
- Ralph Nader, because he's built his entire career on going after corporate chicanery.
- Ron Paul, because he as a general rule doesn't want the federal government to either support or oppose a particular industry or business model.
- Dennis Kucinich, because he's consistently advocated the use of government power to put a check on big business's abuses of their power going back to his days as mayor of Cleveland.
Notice how seriously anyone in the mainstream media took either of their campaigns (for instance, asking Kucinich about UFOs rather than health care or Iraq).